- From: Alexandre Passant <alex@passant.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 14:27:22 +0000
- To: "Dave Reynolds" <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org, moat-dev@groupe.google.com
Hi, On Jan 21, 2008 12:22 PM, Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote: > > Alexandre Passant wrote: > > On Jan 21, 2008 12:36 AM, Frederick Giasson <fred@fgiasson.com> wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >>> Let's look at: > >>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-guide-20051102/img/ex-sub.pn > >> > >> Yeah, so instead of a foaf:Document we would have a moat:Meaning. And > >> instead of using a moat:concept, we would use a skos:subject. > >> > >> This could make sense intuitively. Would have to check further if it > >> really does. > > The problem here is that, again, the skos:subject range is a > > skos:Concept, which will not allow people to use existing URIs that > > are not defined as skos:Concept > > Not sure I agree. It means that any URI you use in this way can be > inferred to also be a skos:Concept. It may not have been labelled as > such in the original source but that doesn't necessarily cause a > problem, open world assumption and all that. I see what you mean, and it sounds ok theorically. But in that case, using a skos:Concept in the ontology but telling to users "use any URI you want" won't make sens I think. That's better to tell them "use an URI" with an rdf:Resource range imho. Moreover, some tools use domain / range of properties to filter queries (eg: in ontology-based forms). So using a skos:Concept may restrict the URIs to be retrieved. > It *could* lead to a inconsistency if there are some conflicting axioms > but that seems somehow unlikely. Are there any specific examples of a > resource one might want to use as in this way where inferring they were > also a skos:Concept would lead to an inconsistency? In case I have my own ontology with a main Class that is owl:disjointWith skos:Concept, because I explicitely do not want people to use broader / narrower links between instances of this class, it will fail. Ok, this is just an example, but this is the kind of use case I want to avoid. Best, Alex. > > Dave > -- > Hewlett-Packard Limited > Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN > Registered No: 690597 England > >
Received on Monday, 21 January 2008 14:27:39 UTC